Are you seriously trying to help your argument with those definitions? None of them have any other use than “shooting living beings”.

I think you need to read them again. Anyway, a definition is not going to give you all the uses of something. A key is a device that unlocks doors. It can also be used as a weapon, but you won’t find that anywhere in its definition.

Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone? “Combat”, “fighting” and “defence” are all concepts referring to the eventual act of hurting someone.

Anyway, a definition is not going to give you all the uses of something. A key is a device that unlocks doors. It can also be used as a weapon, but you won’t find that anywhere in its definition.

A definition is going to give you the uses that it’s used for. If it’s used for something else very rarely, it doesn’t have to be included. A key is rarely used as a weapon, a weapon is rarely used as a key, therefore you don’t include those uses in the definitions.

As was said, threats are not a positive addition to the uses of a weapon.

I’m sorry, I thought I was responding to “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone?” not “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it says there is a use that I will deem positive.”

Does it matter? If the primary uses of a weapon are killing and threatening, then why would you want to allow them even if there’s zero effect on the number of killings and threats?

Because there’s zero effect on violence and no reason not to allow them?

I’m sorry, I thought I was responding to “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone?” not “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it says there is a use that I will deem positive.”

We’re not arguing semantics.

Because there’s zero effect on violence and no reason not to allow them?

Except that there isn’t zero effect on violence, and the only reason one would have one is for violence.

as the topic starter pointed out, not every gun-owner is going to use his guns to make other people or animals feel miserable. some gun owners just like to go to the shooting range with it and shoot paper targets.
the problem is that most guns are used to hurt and kill people and animals. that is why, in my view, the heavier weapons should be banned under all conditions. you won’t be needing a bazooka or a minigun on a shooting range. a small rifle would also do. also, light weapons are a lot less lethal then the heavy kind, so even if a crazy person would get on one of those in his hands, he would not be able to cause as much damage as he could with a heavy machine gun. an other good idea would be a gun-owners license which proofs you are qualified and in the right mental condition to own a gun.

Weapon isn’t used in the literal sense there. It’s not the weapon we’re talking about.

It’s not semantics. You told me to find one thing and then after I did you said “well that’s not some other thing.”

Perhaps I made my question unclear, but you clearly know what we’re arguing about. It’s common sense if we’re talking about the good side of weapons in definitions, you’re not going to come up with “threatening”.

Prove this, first of all.

I took a quick glance through the statistics on gun-related deaths and gun ownership. They’re correlated very well. The less guns people can carry, the less deaths will actually occur with guns.

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

I know the types. There’s some for killing things up close, and there’s some for killing things from far away.

Sadly the NRA is one of the most powerful groups in America. I am still waiting for someone to post proof that Obama actually is going to try to outlaw guns, so far from what I have seen no one has been able to do that.

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

Translation – “Well the other side is beating our argument to shreds so lets whine and make ad hominem attacks.”

If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one. But don’t tell me that I’m a criminal or encouraging criminal behavior by saturating my community with weapons that never leave my possession. That’s just foolish reasoning. So far your only arguments are that guns kill. No kidding really? But by comparison far more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than guns. And more cops are killed by their own guns that they can’t hold on to than by a criminal’s gun. So if you’re really worried about death, you’re focusing on the wrong thing. But to get back to the main point I’ve made numerous times and that noone’s addressed is that there will always be death and violence. I prefer to be armed.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »